T1B

And there, is the point? You've cut to the chase well

Jsc810 wrote:pop, the Vatican said that according to the Bible, the earth was the center of the universe.

Horseshit. Galileo's "heresy" was his disagreement with the prevailing scientific consensus of the day. The Vatican's position was based on Greek astronomy not the Bible.

Jsc, what the Vatican says or doesn't say carries no weight with me.

I don't know what verse(s) there are supposed to be saying that the earth is the center of the universe, but anyway...

Jsc wrote:You can still be a good Christian and accept science.

Very true.

Belief that the creation account given in Genesis is meant to be taken literally is certainly not a requirement for salvation.

Some Christians take it literally and some do not.

Myself, yes I do take it literally - because that is exactly how it is presented to us.

There are some places in the Bible (not that many, actually) where things are written in such a way so that the reader might be left wondering if what is presented is supposed to be allegory or not, but in MOST cases, it's quite OBVIOUS what is supposed to be allegory and what is supposed to be a straightforward account.

Genesis 1-3 is OBVIOUSLY (imo) written as a straightforward account of the creation - and the fall of man.
It is not presented to us as allegory - save for just a few lines here and there - which are also quite obvious.

A few points:
I don't believe in evolution. No, it's not been proven to me.
I don't know the age of the earth and the Bible gives us no age for it.
I believe man is less than 10,000 years old, however I think it is possible that I am wrong about that.

These things are not important to me at all and I have no interest in debating them with you, but trust me, for every link or assertion you might put up showing that my opinion is foolish, I could EASILY counter.

I just don't care to go there.

I don't believe in evolution. No, it's not been proven to me.

I respect that you don't want to debate this pop, that's fine, but...

DC Smackmaster wrote:

2, 1

poptart wrote:I believe man is less than 10,000 years old, however I think it is possible that I am wrong about that.

I'm not even sure how to respond, besides...

WOW

Uhm...


ever heard of carbon dating?

Argon dating?


Just because Aesops The Bible says one thing, it doesn't mean it's true... in fact, human existence has been proven beyond any and all shadow of doubt to be older than 10,000 years... and frankly, if you've tossed your hat in the ring with those who believe otherwise, you're a certifiable fucking idiot.

You know, even a bad example of "Mommy Porn" offers better editing than the supposedly beautifully written Bible.

Van wrote:

You know, even a bad example of "Mommy Porn" offers better editing than the supposedly beautifully written Bible.

I know this because a woman for whom I edit recently sent me a few pages of this 50 Shades of Grey "Mommy Porn" mess that's apparently sweeping the nation. She knew my head would explode upon seeing all the errors, and we had fun laughing incredulously at what passes for a national best-seller these days.

And for all that, it's still in better shape than the Bible.

Jsc wrote:pop, why don't you apply the same skepticism towards the Bible as you do science?

You may not remember that I once was a skeptic.

Jsc wrote:You referenced the first three chapters of Genesis, so for reference I've copied them below.

In many places, the Bible is inconsistent. For example, from just those first three chapters:

When did God make light? Genesis 1:3-5 vs Genesis 1:16-18

Three is no contradiction here.

God brought in light in Genesis 1:3.
God made two lights (plural - sun and moon) in Genesis 1:16.

God brought in light (Jesus Christ) in the 3rd verse of the Bible - because Christ is the Creator of all things and He is the only thing which can send darkness (satan, who had already set up shop on earth - v.2) away.

2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

John 1:1-5
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Christ is the Word, Christ is the Light.

Were humans created before animals? Genesis 1:25-27 vs Genesis 2:18-19

There is no contradiction here.

God created man on day 6, after animals - as it shows in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 gives us an account of the creation in chronological order - day one, this... day two, that... etc...
Genesis 1:26-28 tells of the creation of man on day 6.

Genesis 2:7-25 tells us of events that happened just on day 6, in the garden.

Animals had already been created before man, and in Genesis 2:18-20 (in the garden), God formed, again, each animal up from the ground for the purpose of finding Adam his mate and for the purpose of letting Adam name every animal.

Did birds come from water or ground? Genesis 1:20-21 vs Genesis 2:19

Same as above, and there is no contradiction.

The birds created from the ground in Genesis 2:19 were done so on day 6 in the garden - for the purpose of bringing them before Adam so he could name them.
The whole world birds had already been created on day 5.

Did trees come before or after man? Genesis Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 vs Genesis 2:4-9

There is no contradiction.

The trees described in Genesis 2:8 (day 6) were only the ones as part of the garden.

The world trees had already been created on day 3.

Were birds created before or after man? Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 vs Genesis 2:7 and 2:19

No contradiction - already covered it.

The birds of Genesis 2 were just those which God formed from the ground so that they could be brought before Adam.
The world birds had already been created on day 5.





There's your first five supposed contradictions.

I'm not going down the whole list.

pop -- you honestly believe some heavenly, long-bearded socialist hippie dude in the sky snapped his fingers and created trees and animals? If you remove all your belief from faith for just one moment, and think about this stuff sensibly and intelligently, does none of this seem completely ridiculous to you?

I said I was once a skeptic, didn't I?

I'm not some guy who, as a kid, was thumped relentlessly by his mammy and pappy until he just fell into line and gobbled it all up.

No, the reality is that the Bible is a phenomenal Book which is being fulfilled to this day.

No other book comes remotely close to it.

poptart wrote:I said I was once a skeptic, didn't I?

I know. I'm asking you now, as a seemingly intelligent *adult* with perspective, experiences, and presumably lots of free time to think (and question). These things are what make your beliefs even more puzzling to me. But...to each their own.

Jsc wrote:There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

If you have disagreement with something I posted in refuting the first 5 supposed Bible contradictions, nothing is stopping you from telling me what it is.



Mgo, I frankly find it absurd that anyone who actually looks into whether or not Jesus is the Christ would come to any other conclusion than "Yes, in fact He is."

But I'm curious - where do you think life came from?

poptart wrote:I said I was once a skeptic, didn't I?

And there's no reason you still shouldn't be, at least insofar as it relates to the entirety of the Bible. Plenty of ardent Believers have no problem with admitting that there are errors involving inconsistencies in the Bible, as well as outright ridiculous fables...and not just the ones you refer to as "obvious allegory." No, we're talking the rest of the plainly ridiculous fairy tales encompassing the story of Creation, Noah's ark, the Earth stopping on its axis, etc.

No, the reality is that the Bible is a phenomenal Book which is being fulfilled to this day.

No other book comes remotely close to it.

How would you know? The Bible is just about the only book you read. You certainly haven't read the equivalent tomes from all the other religions.

Hell, having having read both, right off the top of my head I'd say Tolkein's story is far superior to the Bible as a literary work. It's every bit as believable and infinitely better written.

Van wrote:The Bible is just about the only book you read.

Only Book I read?

I usually read your posts, don't I?


:)

Van wrote:

You know, even a bad example of "Mommy Porn" offers better editing than the supposedly beautifully written Bible.

Seriously? You are a fucking idiot.

Van wrote:Hell, having having read both, right off the top of my head I'd say Tolkein's story is far superior to the Bible as a literary work. It's every bit as believable and infinitely better written.

Van's Bible

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:The Bible is just about the only book you read.

Only Book I read?

I usually read your posts, don't I?


:)

RACK!!!

poptart wrote: Mgo, I frankly find it absurd that anyone who actually looks into whether or not Jesus is the Christ would come to any other conclusion than "Yes, in fact He is.

If one's only barometer is "did Jesus fulfill the Old Test. prophecies that would prove him to be the messiah", than, yes, I agree with you that Jesus is the Christ. The problem for ME is that the OT is the ONLY barometer we have with which to make this call. One has to have significant trust that the OT itself is non-fiction. I haven't found any such evidence to support it being anything other than rehashed versions of previously believed religions.

poptart wrote:I said I was once a skeptic, didn't I?

I'm not some guy who, as a kid, was thumped relentlessly by his mammy and pappy until he just fell into line and gobbled it all up.

No, the reality is that the Bible is a phenomenal Book which is being fulfilled to this day.

No other book comes remotely close to it.

It's the arrogance of modern man, thinking that his ancestors, because of their lack of technological prowess, were incapable of understanding simple literary concepts such as allegory.

Metphor and allegory in literature predate even the Antiquity.
Why do you believe these people too stupid to grasp such techniques and apply them to the art of their day?

Martyred wrote:

poptart wrote:I said I was once a skeptic, didn't I?

I'm not some guy who, as a kid, was thumped relentlessly by his mammy and pappy until he just fell into line and gobbled it all up.

No, the reality is that the Bible is a phenomenal Book which is being fulfilled to this day.

No other book comes remotely close to it.

It's the arrogance of modern man, thinking that his ancestors, because of their lack of technological prowess, were incapable of understanding simple literary concepts such as allegory.

Metphor and allegory in literature predate even the Antiquity.
Why do you believe these people too stupid to grasp such techniques and apply them to the art of their day?

I'd say that the problem is that a lot of people today don't grasp these concepts.
How would they expect their ancestors to grasp something that they don't themselves comprehend?

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:The Bible is just about the only book you read.

Only Book I read?

I usually read your posts, don't I?


:)

Besides, even there you pretty much take the Cliffs Notes approach.

Not only did the historical Jesus not literally exist, but none of the events depicted in the gospels literally occurred. And the myth itself was never intended to be taken literally. Rather, the "perfect man" myth was resuscitated directly in the wake of destruction of Jerusalem in the year we reckon as 73ade. The same myth, with only the slightest variations, had been given similar cult life in the Mediterranean region about ten times or so in the previous centuries, always during times of great stress. Most recent had been the "Attic Man" cult Rome, and the "Perfect Man" of the Essene Jews (about 150 bce). In each case the "perfect man" is one who has already passed on--left the building. And this is exactly how the Christer version was rolled out. As for the lessons of Jesus, these are clearly borrowed from earlier various sources. As for the "Book Revelation" which in fact informs about 90% of modern Christer thinking and belief, this bizarre chapter was only brought to its final version about 600 years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Not only did the historical Jesus not literally exist,

Try that one again, Felchie.

Oh and Jesus was not depicted in the Bible as "the perfect man."

As usual you miss the point entirely. The depiction in "the Bible' is a centuries long editing job of an emerging corporate model--a cult transitioning to a major religion. Of course Jesus as introduced to the terrified Jewish populace in the wake of destruction of Jerusalem in 73 ade was the exact "perfect man" myth--with the same function and purpose. All of the "messiah" tags and convoluted (and bizarre) attempts to relate him to the actual Hebrew ancestors, etc., is just typical of the overall mishmash design arrived at by the 2nd council of Ephesus.

88 wrote:At the end a bunch of so-called disciples provide conflicting accounts of their days hanging out with JHC, and the great things he did.

Some people who read the board may not know much about the Bible, but they respect you because you are a solid and thoughtful poster.
So they read your comment that the Gospels conflict - and not knowing any better, take your word as... gospel.

So I feel an obligation to say that your statement there is not accurate.

The four Gospels do not provide conflicting accounts.


The first thing to know is that the Gospels were not written as biographies of the life of Jesus and they were not written to give a moment-by-moment of his life, death, and resurrection.

John told us why they were written.


John 20:30-31
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


The Gospels were written by four different people - and each person had his own perspective on events which were common to all.
Each writer included his own points of emphasis, and they were each writing about events which took place over the course of 3+ years.

So we might say that there are some variances in how they present their information.

But conflict?
No, they are each relaying the same thing(s) to us.

poptart wrote:
The four Gospels do not provide conflicting accounts.

really?
Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:21-31 say you're full of shit....they couldn't even get the genealogy right

The Gospels were written by four different people - and each person had his own perspective on events which were common to all.

it's not like a lineage is some sort of subjective observation.....

So we might say that there are some variances in how they present their information.

But conflict?
No, they are each relaying the same thing(s) to us.

one or two people off might be a slight error, but apparently Matthew missed 15 people along the way.....hardly an observational error.....

Matthew 2:14 said Mary, Joseph and Jesus went to Egypt, Luke 2:39 said they went to Nazareth....another observational variance?

Rack that 88!

^^^

Every time somebody has homosexual intercourse God punishes us by releasing another Nickelback album.

ok, I laffed.

Felix, I'm not sure what the '15 people' is that you are referring to, but I'll answer the others.

The extreme cliff notes version is what I noted before.
That is, each Gospel writer had his own perspective and point(s) of interest that he gave more attention to.

Now you would not be so silly as to imagine that the people who collected the Books of the New Testament were not aware that there are blatantly differing genealogies for Jesus given by Matthew and Luke, would you?

Of course not.

There is a reason why Matthew and Luke show the genealogies as they do.

Reason: Luke was not written for a Jewish audience and Matthew was.

Therefore Matthew wanted to show the Jewish legal line from Abraham through David (and that Jesus is a rightful 'bloodline' King of Israel) - and Matthew only shows us the line from Abraham to Jesus.
Luke wanted to show us the physical line of Jesus, so it begins with Mary (Joseph was not Jesus' physical father) and traces all the way back to Adam, who is the physical root of all people.

There is more that could be said about this, but that is the short answer.

Felix wrote:Matthew 2:14 said Mary, Joseph and Jesus went to Egypt, Luke 2:39 said they went to Nazareth....another observational variance?

There is a very simple answer, Felix, and they are both correct.

Luke says that when all things had been performed according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Nazareth.
This would have included the 'purification,' which by Law took place 40 days after birth.

No problem, Luke is accurate.
They returned to Nazareth.

But what about Matthew?

If you notice in Matthew it doesn't say how long after Jesus had been born that the wise men made their visit.
It is assumed that they went to Bethlehem, which was Jesus' birthplace, but the text does not say that they found him there.
It says they followed a star to where he was.

Knowing what we do from reading Luke (that Jesus was only in Bethlehem for a short time), it is logical to realize that the wise men found Jesus in Nazareth and not Bethlehem.
And most important to note is that Matthew says that the wise men found Jesus in a HOUSE.
Of course in Bethlehem, Jesus was born in a manger.
So obviously the wise men visit was some period of time after his birth - because Jesus was now in a house (in Nazareth) and not a manger (in Bethlehem) any longer.

Then after the wise men left, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus departed from NAZARETH (Luke was right) to Egypt - Matthew 2:14.

BOTH Matthew and Luke are accurate in what they have relayed.

Not difficult.

Jsc wrote:We could point out a verse that says BLACK and then another that says WHITE, and pop will still have a way of interpreting such that there is no conflict. It is one thing to have faith, it is another to ignore science. Willful ignorance.

Jsc, you came in mocking me and the Bible and posted a list of supposed Bible inconsistencies.

I took the time to respond to the first five on the list - and quite easily dismissed them.

If you had issue with how I refuted them, you could easily have spoken to what I posted, but instead you just prattle on, make claims, and post criticisms of the Bible which have NO basis in fact at all.

I consider your takes at this point to be nothing more than background noise.

poptart wrote:Felix, I'm not sure what the '15 people' is that you are referring to, but I'll answer the others.

pretty simple tart....Matthews genealogy shows 27 people in the lineage of Jesus, while Luke shows 43, so it was actually 16 people....thing is, only four of them were the same...

There is a reason why Matthew and Luke show the genealogies as they do.

Reason: Luke was not written for a Jewish audience and Matthew was.

why would they write for a different audience? that makes no sense whatsoever.....

If you notice in Matthew it doesn't say how long after Jesus had been born that the wise men made their visit.
It is assumed that they went to Bethlehem, which was Jesus' birthplace, but the text does not say that they found him there.
It says they followed a star to where he was.

Knowing what we do from reading Luke (that Jesus was only in Bethlehem for a short time), it is logical to realize that the wise men found Jesus in Nazareth and not Bethlehem.
And most important to note is that Matthew says that the wise men found Jesus in a HOUSE.
Of course in Bethlehem, Jesus was born in a manger.
So obviously the wise men visit was some period of time after his birth - because Jesus was now in a house (in Nazareth) and not a manger (in Bethlehem) any longer.

Then after the wise men left, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus departed from NAZARETH (Luke was right) to Egypt - Matthew 2:14.

BOTH Matthew and Luke are accurate in what they have relayed.

Not difficult.

wow, that's some of the best apologetics' tap dancing I've seen in a while.....congrats.....



PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN

Tap dancing?

No, that noise you hear is the key turning and your brain grinding and refusing to turn over.

If one can read, they can understand from what I posted Matthew and Luke do NOT have any conflict regarding the incident you brought up.


Felix, the Bible has over 40 authors.
Yes, each one had an audience that he was writing to.
It's not unlike what any author does.
There is a general audience he has in mind.

Mark was written with the Romans as a target audience.
Matthew ---> Jews.
Luke ---> Gentiles.
John ---> All believers.

As I said, Matthew had a reason for listing the genealogy showing Jesus' rightful claim as King of Israel.
Luke wanted to emphasize the humanity of Jesus - so he went back from Mary all the way to Adam.

So it is.

So, in other words, the Bible is a collection of whimsies written by authors who put their own spin on everything, including the basic 'facts.'

Yep, definitely a great source to rely on for solid info. Clearly God wrote it, using man's hand.

I'm sold.

Van wrote:So, in other words, the Bible is a collection of whimsies written by authors who put their own spin on everything, including the basic 'facts.'

If you had intellectual integrity and a sincere desire to see the truth of what has been posted in this thread, you would see quite easily that the allegations made by Jsc and Felix hold no water.

If I was wrong in something I posted in refuting the first 5 bogus claims Jsc made about Bible contradictions, I would think one of you would be ALL OVER IT.

But none of you have anything to come back with - because what I posted is accurate and it shot down his false claim.
So you instead crank up the "You're crazy and the Bible is crazy" rhetoric even louder.

Oh well.


You, Felix, whoever... go ahead and read Matthew 2 and Luke 2:21-24,39 and then read the response I gave to Felix' charge of conflict and tell me where I am wrong.

Felix (and whoever put this bogus contradiction in his brain) were simply working off of the wrong ASSumption that Matthew 2 and Luke 2 were happening at the same time in the same place.
Sadly for them, Matthew 2 does not verify that assumption.

There is no conflict between the two accounts.



All the time, people spit the "Oh, the Bible is full of errors and contradictions" mantra out without giving it any research at all - and millions of lemmings nod their head.

It's pathetic, actually.

pop, you just said that accounts of Jesus's lineage by two authors differ because their purposes weren't the same. That means humans are putting different spins on supposed facts, just as you're continually putting your own spin on every fucking contradiction presented so that you never have to admit to the Bible's errors.

You love to talk about lemmings whenever people disagree with you. In the meantime, you don't put an ounce of critical thought into one of the silliest things ever contrived even as you follow willfully and blindly along like a...well....

If you applied even a shred of the laser-focus circumspection on the Bible that you apply to All Things Obama, well, again....

It's fairly remarkable, your utter hypocrisy and profound lack of self-awareness.

Van wrote:you're continually putting your own spin on every fucking contradiction presented so that you never have to admit to the Bible's errors.

If I've spun my refutations of Jsc's first 5 supposed contradictions and Felix' 3 supposed contradictions, you (Felix, Jsc, whoever) can feel free to tell me how I was wrong.

I've given you all ample invitation to do so, and I see nothing yet.

Van wrote:pop, you just said that accounts of Jesus's lineage by two authors differ because their purposes weren't the same. That means humans are putting different spins on supposed facts

It means nothing of the kind.

There ARE two different lineages for Jesus.
It just depending on which parent you want to trace from.

Matthew show us the lineage from Abraham up to Joseph - Jesus' father.
Luke shows us the lineage from Adam up to Mary - Jesus' mother.

And I explained why each author chose to post the genealogy that they did.


This is a TOTAL non-issue and to be frank, it's a very silly thing for you two to keep pursuing it.

You bring up an interesting point, Van, regarding Pop's seething disdain for Obama. His is a two-pronged delusion as I see it. First, he thinks this BS book is real, and apparently, he also believes jesus to be republican!

DC wrote:First, he thinks this BS book is real, and apparently, he also believes jesus to be republican!

News to me.

Myself, I'm not a republican.

Jsc wrote:How come you can't be as skeptical about the Bible as you are science?

I really think that most of the time you don't read my posts.

I've said many times now that I once WAS a Bible skeptic.


I have no idea why it gnaws at you so much that I don't believe in evolution and believe (although admit that it's possible I'm wrong) man is less than 10,000 years old.
My views on those two things are really not uncommon.

I just don't find any motivation to get into a back-and-forth on those points.
They are not essential to salvation and either way you come down on those issues, it doesn't change the overall spiritual message the Bible is meant to relay to us.

John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Oh, thought you were. You sure you aren't?

Odd that so many gods that came before jesus led very similar lives.

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-chri ... ate-jesus/